Palo Alto Networks Inc v. Selective Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00594
• Patent #: 8,111,629
• Filed: February 7, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Fortinet, Inc., and WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Selective Signals, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 15, 17-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Media Session Identification Method for IP Networks
• Brief Description: The ’629 patent discloses a method for identifying media session types in IP networks without inspecting packet payloads. The method involves obtaining packets of unknown sessions, extracting their traffic characteristics (e.g., header information), grouping packets with similar characteristics into a "presumed session," analyzing the characteristics of the grouped packets, and using those characteristics to identify a session type for purposes of resource allocation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 15 and 17-22 are obvious over Pappu alone or in combination with Peleg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pappu (Patent 8,085,775) and Peleg (Application # 2006/0262789).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pappu, which addresses identifying and classifying network packet flows based on behavior, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Independent claim 15 recites a method of identifying a session type by grouping packets of unknown sessions based on similar traffic characteristics and analyzing the group. Petitioner asserted that Pappu taught this method through its system of processing incoming packets. Specifically, Pappu disclosed receiving packets that do not match any "previously established flow," which Petitioner equated to the claimed "packets of respectively unknown sessions." Pappu then obtained header information, such as the "five tuple" (source/destination IP, source/destination port, protocol), which constituted the claimed "traffic packet characteristics."
  • Petitioner argued that Pappu’s step of grouping packets into a "flow" if they share a sufficient amount of header information (e.g., an identical five tuple) directly corresponded to the claimed step of "grouping together those packets having similar values." This initial grouping created what Petitioner described as a "presumed session," because Pappu taught that the five tuple alone is insufficient to categorize the traffic type (e.g., VoIP, P2P). Subsequently, Pappu analyzed "behavioral statistics" of the flow—such as average packet size, inter-packet gap, and flow rate—which mapped to the claimed step of "analyzing said grouped packets...for session characteristic." Finally, Pappu used these statistics to estimate the flow's traffic type, satisfying the limitation of "using said session characteristics to identify a session type."
  • For the dependent claims, Petitioner contended Pappu taught applying "user-specified actions" based on the identified flow type, such as changing priority (claim 17); using thresholds for grouping, such as requiring an identical five tuple (claim 18); analyzing packet length and inter-arrival period (claims 19 and 22); inserting a Quality of Service (QoS) indication into the packet header (claim 20); and identifying common parameter patterns within a flow to determine its type (claim 21).
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner's primary position was that Pappu alone rendered the claims obvious. Alternatively, to the extent Pappu was deemed not to teach grouping packets into a "presumed session," a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Pappu with Peleg. Peleg explicitly disclosed creating a "potential session" in a sessions table for new, un-identified packet streams. A POSITA would combine Peleg's concept of a preliminary "potential session" with Pappu's robust flow analysis to create a more efficient system. The motivation would be to better manage network resources by distinguishing between newly formed, unconfirmed sessions and fully identified, predictable sessions, thereby allowing for more targeted and efficient resource allocation. Both references address the same problem (classifying traffic without deep packet inspection) in the same field.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination. Modifying Pappu's system with Peleg's known technique for handling potential sessions would predictably improve Pappu's resource allocation capabilities without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 15 and 17-22 of the ’629 patent as unpatentable.